Can we talk about Cristiano Ronaldo?

snowblind

Deleted User wrote: »

And if they are defamatory, the target of your comments is well entitled to sue.

The law of defamation deals with expressions, you can think whatever you like, but if you express it you are subject to the same law as the media. "It's my opinion" is no more legitimate than an editor in a newspaper saying "it's my opinion".

Though obviously a newspaper may reach more people and the damage may be greater than, say, an opinion circulated to one other person.

On this very page you can read my comments that say:

"Paddy Jackson & Stuart Olding can pursue a legal route if they have been slandered. "

" If I present my opinions to others, I'm well entitled to do so. If I claim as a fact that person x is guilty of y, I can be sued, or banned from posting, or both."

However, I still do not have to adhere to journalistic ethics like a newspaper. Example: Cyrus inferring what I mean when I say something, rather than believing what I actually write, would not adhere to journalist ethics, but it's perfectly allowed on this board for good reason. If we had to adhere to journalist ethics on this board, it would be pretty empty.

Cyrus

snowblind wrote: »

In the same way you cannot prove inference, just keep saying you know what I meant and maybe one day you will achieve psychic status. Hint: you're wrong and clearly too attached to the straw man you have made in your own image.

im not sure what straw man you are talking about, people like you tend to invoke a straw man a lot.

what am i wrong about?

sReq | uTeK

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm a firm believer in due process myself but if you get a situation where somebody has a team of lawyers like OJ Simpson had then it's difficult to remain confident in the legal process.

Or the inept law enforcement personal who carried out the investigation.

snowblind

Cyrus wrote: »

im not sure what straw man you are talking about, people like you tend to invoke a straw man a lot.

what am i wrong about?

People like you there is your strawman.

You claim I inferred something that I didn't. Why would I try to say something and deny it immediately after?

How do you know what I am like from a couple of posts?

Cyrus

snowblind wrote: »

People like you there is your strawman.

You claim I inferred something that I didn't. Why would I try to say something and deny it immediately after?

How do you know what I am like from a couple of posts?

People like you is people like you , there is no straw man unless you are a figment of my imagination

As to your motivation who knows

Guy:Incognito

.@Cristiano Ronaldo has shown in recent months his great professionalism and dedication, which is appreciated by everyone at Juventus. 1/1

The events allegedly dating back to almost 10 years ago do not change this opinion, which is shared by anyone who has come into contact with this great champion. 2/2



Ronan Keating should tell the Juve twitter monkey that sometimes it's best to just say nothing at all.

MD1990

very strange his football career has nothing to do with it.

snowblind

Cyrus wrote: »

People like you is people like you , there is no straw man unless you are a figment of my imagination

As to your motivation who knows

What type of person am I then? If you say "people like you", you seem to have a type in mind. Come on, you made the argument, spill it.

You seem to know me better than I do. You also seem to know what I mean better than I do, as you won't listen to what I say, but rather what you think I mean. I kinda doubt you do though. Because I don't know you, for starters. Seems like you are flailing, trying something who knows what. Maybe you are doing a social experiment. In that case, I choose to opt out thanks.

Silentcorner

MD1990 wrote: »

very strange his football career has nothing to do with it.

It has afforded him the ability to hire/engage with an excellent legal team giving him the very best legal advice money can buy, plus the ability to pay a huge sum of money he used to pay of this woman.

If you or I did the exact same thing as him (according to the details in the article in der speigel)...we'd be facing a jury and 8 years in jail.

CSF

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

.@Cristiano Ronaldo has shown in recent months his great professionalism and dedication, which is appreciated by everyone at Juventus. 1/1

The events allegedly dating back to almost 10 years ago do not change this opinion, which is shared by anyone who has come into contact with this great champion. 2/2



Ronan Keating should tell the Juve twitter monkey that sometimes it's best to just say nothing at all.

I’d definitely think Juventus have gotten wind that there won’t be any legal proceedings. Either that or they’re really really dumb.

eagle eye

Guy:Incognito wrote:

Ronan Keating should tell the Juve twitter monkey that sometimes it's best to just say nothing at all.

I'm sorry but that is awful.

Guy:Incognito

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm sorry but that is awful.

It sure is

snowblind

Terrible PR from Juve

Nike & EA Sports have voiced their concerns. On brand calculated PR stuff? Sure. Still I'll take it over silence.

UK Independent: Cristiano Ronaldo: Why isn't this the biggest sport story in the world?

CSF

snowblind wrote: »

Terrible PR from Juve

Nike & EA Sports have voiced their concerns. On brand calculated PR stuff? Sure. Still I'll take it over silence.

UK Independent: Cristiano Ronaldo: Why isn't this the biggest sport story in the world?

I mean the answer to this is because no charges have been filed right? A Cristiano Ronaldo court case will reach/surpass O.J. levels of public interest if that happens.

TallGlass

I keep seeing him in ads. This is like the calm before the storm. It's going to turn into a **** storm. Inocient or not, he's not really handling it too well.

CSF

CSF wrote: »

This is horrific.

that is the alleged fact as presented in the der spiegel article.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/cristiano-ronaldo-kathryn-mayorga-the-woman-who-accuses-ronaldo-of-rape-a-1230634.html

Vincent Vega

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

.@Cristiano Ronaldo has shown in recent months his great professionalism and dedication, which is appreciated by everyone at Juventus. 1/1

The events allegedly dating back to almost 10 years ago do not change this opinion, which is shared by anyone who has come into contact with this great champion. 2/2



Ronan Keating should tell the Juve twitter monkey that sometimes it's best to just say nothing at all.

Absolutely ludicrous decision by whoever at Juventus decided to ok this PR.

It creates even more controversy and negative press by being posted in the first place, more should it remain posted and then again even more difficulty and other issues should it end up being deleted.

wonga77

snowblind wrote: »

Terrible PR from Juve

Nike & EA Sports have voiced their concerns. On brand calculated PR stuff? Sure. Still I'll take it over silence.

UK Independent: Cristiano Ronaldo: Why isn't this the biggest sport story in the world?

his client wasn't mentally fit to sign a non-disclosure agreement thus it should not be binding

When was she determined not fit? Was that a recent thing in this case? Apologies if this has been answered, Im just curious as to how they have come to this conclusion now

LiamoSail

Vincent Vega wrote: »

Absolutely ludicrous decision by whoever at Juventus decided to ok this PR.

It creates even more controversy and negative press by being posted in the first place, more should it remain posted and then again even more difficulty and other issues should it end up being deleted.

He took the hump at Real when they didn't support him politically going for the Ballon D'Or. I could well imagine he wouldn't be too impressed if Juve weren't seen to be supporting him in this. Presumably this is Juve looking after their investment.

wonga77

wonga77 wrote: »

his client wasn't mentally fit to sign a non-disclosure agreement thus it should not be binding

When was she determined not fit? Was that a recent thing in this case? Apologies if this has been answered, Im just curious as to how they have come to this conclusion now

The lawyer is arguing this. It can't be proven today either way what her mental state was at that time but that means that his argument works.

It doesn't really matter. The non disclosure was just used to cover up the unsavoury details for the benefit of ronaldo. It coming out now is a good thing.

LiamoSail

LiamoSail wrote: »

He took the hump at Real when they didn't support him politically going for the Ballon D'Or. I could well imagine he wouldn't be too impressed if Juve weren't seen to be supporting him in this. Presumably this is Juve looking after their investment.

Their 100 mill fee not looking so smart now especially since a lot of the rationale was to raise the club's profile through the use of ronaldo and his brand, apart from the actual football.

LiamoSail

glasso wrote: »

Their 100 mill fee not looking so smart now especially since a lot of the rationale was to raise the club's profile through the use of ronaldo and his brand, apart from the actual football.

Yea agree. This is potentially worse for Juve than him flopping on the pitch

Shanotheslayer

And for all those years, we thought Ramos was the biggest Scumbag at Madrid

Shanotheslayer

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

And for all those years, we thought Ramos was the biggest Scumbag at Madrid

but he's 99% gentleman, according to himself.

what a player but looks like the sh1t is going to stick with this.

CR 7

Is this grounds for a free username change?

CR 7

CR 7 wrote: »

Is this grounds for a free username change?

new name -> back-door Ronnie?

GavRedKing

CR 7 wrote: »

Is this grounds for a free username change?

I'd be considering changing the Avatar at least. :pac:

GavRedKing

glasso wrote: »

new name -> back-door Ronnie?

Mod

You've already made a post like this the other day, another and you'll be banned

NIMAN

Juve bought Ronnie to try to finally win the CL, as they had come close recently.

Thought he was the final piece of the jigsaw.

They might not even have him to play come 2019.

ELM327

Innocent until proven guilty seems to be but a concept in these things these days

LiamoSail

NIMAN wrote: »

Juve bought Ronnie to try to finally win the CL, as they had come close recently.

Thought he was the final piece of the jigsaw.

They might not even have him to play come 2019.

There's no chance he'll be locked up for this. The evidence is inadmissible. It'll hurt the pocket of him and all those associated with him, but it won't cost him his liberty. That is to say unless further allegations start to emerge

snowblind

ELM327 wrote: »

Innocent until proven guilty seems to be but a concept in these things these days

That's for the court.

If Ronaldo is found not guilty, Kathryn Mayorga could be sued for damaging CR7 reputation. If we claim Ronaldo is innocence, we would be assuming Mayorga is guilty.

So if we are to talk about this within the rules for the court, we shouldn't talk about his innocence OR guilt.

But here we are, people expressing opinions, nothing wrong with that.

Shanotheslayer

Ronaldo should just hire a rake of the Boards.ie Manchester United fans. Those lads will defend him to the death :pac:



*Lads this was said in Jest - before anybody jumps down my throat.

irishman86

The fact he paid her not to speak means nothing. You should have a google of NFL/NBA athletes. This happens to them all the time.
Seems like someone after a few mins of fame imo

eagle eye

LiamoSail wrote:

There's no chance he'll be locked up for this. The evidence is inadmissible. It'll hurt the pocket of him and all those associated with him, but it won't cost him his liberty. That is to say unless further allegations start to emerge

He doesn't have to be locked up. If he is charged then he will almost certainly not be playing football until it's dealt with.

irishman86

eagle eye wrote: »

He doesn't have to be locked up. If he is charged then he will almost certainly not be playing football until it's dealt with.

Nonsense, himself/Messi/Mascherano all charged with stuff never stopped playing

theoneeyedman

I had 29 minutes at work today free, so I actually read the Der Spiegal article.
My take on it is that there was (most likely) an incident, I won't go into details but there was a physical exam/'rape kit' carried out, and allied with the negotiations about the settlement.... we'll it is easy to form a view that the incident happened as was described.
Legally, it will come down to whether the nondisclosure agreement will hold. My own opinion (not a legal one, more a moral one) is that it shouldn't, that if the incident happened as described then the perpetrator should do time, and it isn't right imo that just you can afford to, you can buy your way free.
Will this effect Ronnie..... It's hard to know. If. They can isolate the story (maybe pay the woman off again) then maybe the story will die, but they need to shut her down pretty quickly. All it needs is another person to come out with a similar story and then he's in real trouble.
The retirement home of the MLS will be out of bounds anyway.

Guy:Incognito

theoneeyedman wrote: »

, and it isn't right imo that just you can afford to, you can buy your way free..

If he paid the authorities that might be relevant, but he didn't. He offered the woman money and she took it. There's no obligation on her to take it or a price that guarantees your freedom.

ERG89

eagle eye wrote: »

He doesn't have to be locked up. If he is charged then he will almost certainly not be playing football until it's dealt with.

Going by that overly strongly (imo) worded Juve statement I'd highly doubt that.
EA & Nike are going down the awkward monitoring the situation route which they hope will pass smoothly for monetary reasons.

citytillidie

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

.@Cristiano Ronaldo has shown in recent months his great professionalism and dedication, which is appreciated by everyone at Juventus. 1/1

The events allegedly dating back to almost 10 years ago do not change this opinion, which is shared by anyone who has come into contact with this great champion. 2/2



Ronan Keating should tell the Juve twitter monkey that sometimes it's best to just say nothing at all.

Juve have lost £78M since the story broke

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/76m-wiped-off-juventus-value-after-rape-allegation-against-cristiano-ronaldo-a3954601.html

Rezident

LiamoSail wrote: »

There's no chance he'll be locked up for this. The evidence is inadmissible. It'll hurt the pocket of him and all those associated with him, but it won't cost him his liberty. That is to say unless further allegations start to emerge

So he should get away with rape just because he's super-rich? Not necessarily in America.

If he is guilty of these allegations he should definitely go to jail. And based on the evidence so far he must have done something.

eagle eye

irishman86 wrote:

Nonsense, himself/Messi/Mascherano all charged with stuff never stopped playing

They were tax fraud cases, this is completely different. There will be a sizeable amount of Juventus fans who won't want him wearing the colours. Every game the opposition will be calling him out which raises the possibility of trouble in or around the stadium.

HandsomeBob

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm a firm believer in due process myself but if you get a situation where somebody has a team of lawyers like OJ Simpson had then it's difficult to remain confident in the legal process.

That is true and I do recall that guy who was at the centre of The Staircase documentary saying as much along the lines of "how the hell do people with no money accused of crimes manage to defend themselves."

That being said that guy's case also shows that money can't buy freedom. With Ronaldo, I don't think settling necessarily equates to guilt. It might just mean swiftly sweeping it under the rug is the better option than going through the rigmarole of a high profile court case.

Ronaldo's situation does raise a point I've been thinking about since the Weinstein scandal hit; there's no better time than now than for people to try and break non disclosure agreements. With public opinion the way it is right now it's unlikely they're going to be sued. I'm sure Weinstein could have done so but hasn't even tried seemingly.

CSF

To be honest, I think a non-disclosure agreement should automatically be forfeit in any situation if you break it. Do I think a rapist would deserve the money back? Obviously not, but the law should be consistent if nothing else.

irishman86

eagle eye wrote: »

They were tax fraud cases, this is completely different. There will be a sizeable amount of Juventus fans who won't want him wearing the colours. Every game the opposition will be calling him out which raises the possibility of trouble in or around the stadium.

Ah stop buddy, the opposition will be doing that anyways. It wont change if hes not charged, hence why superstar players often just pay women who say they will go to the press
I think you dont fully understand the Italian mind set to them this is meh, look at there former leader

Was the move to Juventus down to this story potentially coming out? He's on probation in Spain for tax fraud.

gimli2112

You'd never know. If RM were aware of it surely they would be on the hook for some sort of misrepresentation claim in the sale of an asset. Surely it would be one of the questions asked, something along the lines of are you aware of any pending criminal charges? I see they knocked 10% off the Juve value last week.

snowblind

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

If he paid the authorities that might be relevant, but he didn't. He offered the woman money and she took it. There's no obligation on her to take it or a price that guarantees your freedom.

A sum of money means completely different things to a person like CR and a "regular person", it's essentially a way of wielding power over someone when the money is seemingly (from a "regular persons" POV) limitless. It's a skewed playing field.

Then also we live in a society. If CR is guilty, they should be legally culpable regardless of settlements. Not my idea of a society to have people who can afford to pay off their heinous violent crimes, doesn't sound like a process that would discourage them from doing it again....

Silentcorner

There's a simple solution, ban the use of NDAs in criminal matters, that way you would weed out the gold diggers and have a better chance of getting rapists into courts in front of juries.

I read a book not so long ago called Night Games, about the activities of Australian Rules players, clubs used to have what was termed on the books of clubs, "Maintenance Expenses"...this was money given to gold diggers/victims of rape for their silence and to keep the boys out of court.

CSF

Silentcorner wrote: »

There's a simple solution, ban the use of NDAs in criminal matters, that way you would weed out the gold diggers and have a better chance of getting rapists into courts in front of juries.

I read a book not so long ago called Night Games, about the activities of Australian Rules players, clubs used to have what was termed on the books of clubs, "Maintenance Expenses"...this was money given to gold diggers/victims of rape for their silence and to keep the boys out of court.

Yeah I’d agree with that. More specifically in violent crimes (all sexual assault falls into this criteria regardless of the situation). Nobody is offering a non-disclosure deal if they know it is worthless and it eliminates that escape route for rich criminals.